Comments:
This site is nearly 10 years old and I check it now and again as this is one thing in my life that has been filed away. I am not prepared to get into bickering about dates about how long I had been a JW etc.If you are really bothered then post your e mail here and I will send you the details of the congregations that I was in for you to check my validity.I have no problem with that. But personally I dont see what difference it makes to the info that I have resented. As one poster said we all have choices. If you are quite happy to use recognised and valid dating systems to "prove" that Jerusalem was destroyed in one year but are not prepared to recognise the same systems when it goes against what you have been taught then that is your problem. Just remember...JWs are the only ones in the world who believe a date for Jerusalem's destruction when the rest of the world know it is a different date and can back this up from proof. Go figure......

Comments:
Just to clear up the "dating" problem. My mum became a witness when I was 5 so that is when I began attending meetings. I was baptised when I was nearly 15. So depending what way you want to look at it, causes the "problem" :-)

Comments:
The most fascinating thing about your study is that once 607 falls, then 1914 falls, and then the whole rotten JW structure collapses. Since Jehovah's witnesses claims of authority is based upon being elected by Jesus as his only channel in 1918-1919 and this is demonstrably false, they loose all credibility once 607 is disproved. It's actual proof of their being in the wrong. So kudos to you for spreading this!!!!!! (even if you have a little "dating problem" about the length of your membership in the JW's - haha)

Comments:
BTW, I did just read a post where you explained the 10 year difference. However, it doesn't make sense that you would change the way you count how long you have been a witness. Sounds like you making up things to cover your mistakes. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

Comments:
I noticed that in your first letter you stated that you had been a witness for 17 years. Their response is dated June 5, 2000. Then, in your letter regarding 1874, you stated that you had been a witness for 27 years. Their response to this letter is dated Feb. 27, 2001, just 8 month's later. Can you please explain the difference, how you went from 17 to 27 years in just 8 months. Or do we now know why you have such a hard time understanding dates?

Comments:
I found the letters from the society not at all confusing and it seems logical regarding their conclusions. You seem to be nitpicking over very small unimportant things. They repeatedly said that it is an established fact the Jerusalem fell in 589. Sad that you have spent so much time over such small unimportant matters. I do not see the dishonesty over the franz situation either. It appears that he simply was told verbally, but not in writing. But we all have to make our choices.

Comments:
Certainly a confusing subject, yet i feel I need the correct answer. thus my arrival here. Thank you for "pioneering" the research.

Comments:
This is odd, I did some research on this subject and I came to a conclusion that 607 is the right date. E-mail me at tombates22@yahoo.com

Comments: